Decisions and interventions

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £30,000.  

In the period 31 March 2018 to 18 April 2019, the respondent was the director (sole director between 31 March 2018 and 1 September 2018; and the owner of 50% of the shares from around 1 November 2018) of Global Security Trustees Ltd, whose role was to act as security trustee protecting the interests of bondholders, notwithstanding an obvious conflict in doing so (or significant risk thereof) given his previous and subsequent instructions (as a partner in Buss Murton Law LLP) for the lender London Capital & Finance PLC. He had thereby breached outcome 3.4 of the Code of Conduct 2011 and principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. 

The respondent had been motivated by his desire to do an ‘almost favour’ for his client, as was clear from his evidence. His actions had been planned, notwithstanding that he had stated that he did not recognise that there was an own interest conflict from the outset. He had acted in breach of the trust placed in him by virtue of his role as the security trustee. He had acted against his better judgement, initially refusing to take on the role. 

The respondent had caused harm to the reputation of the profession. He had acted when there was an own interest conflict, that conflict having been obvious from the outset. The prolonged continuation of the respondent’s dual roles had damaged public confidence. The fact that a solicitor remained embedded in a conflicted position as matters deteriorated increased the harm caused to the reputation of the profession. 

The misconduct was aggravated by its continuation over time, and in particular, when there were clear red flags as to an actual conflict (as opposed to the significant risk thereof). The respondent had shown some insight into his misconduct, had cooperated fully with the applicant and had had a previously unblemished career.

Given the nature of the misconduct, which was very serious, a fine of £30,000 was appropriate. 

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £50,000.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll. 

The respondent had, while in practice as a partner at MSB Solicitors, between 26 and 27 April 2022, signed two leases to confirm that he had witnessed the signature of Person B on each lease, when that was untrue. In doing so he had breached principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraph 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

The parties had invited the SDT to deal with the allegation against the respondent in accordance with the statement of agreed facts and proposed outcome annexed to the judgment. The SDT had reviewed all the material before it and was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the admissions had been properly made.

The SDT had considered the Guidance Note on Sanctions (11th edition – February 2025). In doing so, the SDT had assessed the culpability and harm identified together with the aggravating and mitigating factors that existed. 

At the time of his misconduct, the respondent was a partner in the firm. He had had direct control over his conduct, which he had known was in material breach of his professional obligations. He had known the importance of ensuring the valid execution of the leases. He had never met Person B and the leases had not been signed by Person B. Notwithstanding that, the respondent endorsed the leases, stating that he had witnessed Person B signing the same.

The SDT had determined that, given the seriousness of the misconduct, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent off the roll, as proposed by the parties. Accordingly, the application for matters to be dealt with by way of an agreed outcome had been granted.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £15,000.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice for 12 months, such suspension to be suspended for 24 months from 20 March 2026, and that she should pay a fine of £20,000. It further ordered that she should be subject to the following restriction order for 24 months from 20 March 2026: ‘The firm, of which the respondent is the sole authorised individual, cannot operate without employing an individual (unrelated to her) in the position of finance director, details of which to be provided to the SRA by 4pm on 27 March 2026.’

While in practice as a solicitor at Pishon Gold and while acting for the seller in a conveyancing transaction relating to Property A, the respondent had failed to perform an undertaking given to Kreston Law Ltd to discharge or redeem the mortgages and charges secured against Property A on or before completion. She had thereby breached paragraph 1.3 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs and principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles.

On 21 April 2023, the respondent had informed Kreston that she would be chasing the lenders for confirmation of discharge, when she knew or ought to have known that she had not yet made any payments in connection with the outstanding charges to enable them to be removed. She had thereby breached paragraph 1.4 of the code and principles 2 and 5. Between July 2023 and May 2025, the respondent had failed fully to cooperate with the SRA’s investigation into her conduct by failing to respond to requests for information and documents, thereby breaching paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4 of the code.

The SDT had found that there was no motivation for the misconduct. The respondent’s actions had been spontaneous. She had been overwhelmed by the circumstances she was faced with when she realised that the charges had not been discharged on completion of the sale of Property A. She had neither intended nor foreseen the potential for harm that would result from her actions, as she had genuinely believed that the charges would be discharged by the firm on completion.

In all the circumstances, a suspended suspension, a fine in the sum of £20,000 and a Restriction Order represented the most appropriate and proportionate sanction to mark the undoubted seriousness of the misconduct, protect the public and maintain the reputation of the profession.

The case presented a warning that even experienced professionals could make serious errors in judgment.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £27,258. 

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice as a solicitor for six months from 17 February 2026. 

While in practice as a solicitor at Robinson Allfree Solicitors, the respondent had, on 10 July 2023, signed and included her details on a deed to confirm that she had been present as a witness when another signature had been made on the deed, when she knew or ought to have known that including her signature and details on the deed was misleading and had thereby breached principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles and paragraph 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs, RFLs and RSLs. 

The finding of dishonesty engaged the well-established principle that strike-off will ordinarily follow unless exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated.

The dishonesty had been spontaneous and momentary. It had not been undertaken for personal or financial gain and had not formed part of a continuing course of conduct. There had been no calculated deception and no attempt to mislead the regulator. The misconduct had represented a serious misjudgement made under pressure rather than behaviour reflective of the respondent’s usual character.

The conduct had been confined to a single act involving one document, on one occasion, for one client. It had been rectified within a relatively short period and had never been repeated. There had been no financial repercussions and no actual loss, although harm had been foreseeable and there had been damage to the reputation of the profession as would inevitably be the case with any instance of dishonesty by a solicitor.

Although the dishonesty was serious, it did not fall within the ordinary category requiring strike-off. The combination of its limited nature, scope and extent, together with the strong mitigation present, placed the case within the small residual category where striking off would be disproportionate. Exceptional circumstances had accordingly been established.

A fixed period of suspension appropriately balanced the need to maintain public confidence and uphold professional standards with the requirement of proportionality in the circumstances of the case.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £25,000.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice for two years from 5 February 2026. 

Between 4 May 2018 and 6 May 2018, the respondent had offered to retract complaints he had made to the UK, US and EU security and intelligence organisations about his client’s conduct, in pursuit of payment of outstanding invoices from his client, thereby breaching overseas principle 1 of rule 1.3, overseas principle 2 of rule 1.4 and overseas principle 6 of rule 1.8 of the SRA Overseas Rules 2013.

Between 10 July 2017 and 28 April 2018, the respondent had published on Gentium Law Group SARL’s website press releases relating to his former client, accusing them of fraud, in breach of a court order, thereby breaching overseas principle 2 of rule 1.4 and overseas principle 6 of rule 1.8 of the Overseas Rules.

Between 27 October 2021 and 4 November 2021, the respondent had published decisions of the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal, dated 27 October 2021 and 4 November 2021 respectively, on his website, in a way which breached the anonymity granted by the FTT and UT, thereby breaching principles 1, 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019. 

The respondent was motivated by his desire to obtain payment of his fees, and also to cause the maximum amount of aggravation to those whom he considered to have wronged him. His actions were planned. 

He had caused harm to persons B and C by publishing the press releases in breach of the court’s prohibition on publication. He had also risked significant harm to person A in the publication of the immigration tribunal decisions in contravention of an anonymity order. Those publications were deliberate and designed to cause the maximum possible harm. 

His misconduct was aggravated by its deliberate, calculated and repeated nature that had continued over a period of time. In mitigation, he had self-reported to his regulator. 

The nature and seriousness of the respondent’s conduct were such that there was a need to protect both the public and the reputation of the legal profession from future harm by removing his ability to practise. His lack of insight was such as to call into question his ability to continue practising appropriately. A suspension from practice for two years reflected the seriousness of the misconduct.

There was no order as to costs.

The SDT ordered that the first respondent (admitted 2006) should be reprimanded; and that the second respondent (admitted 2009) should be suspended from practice for two years, from 13 March 2026. 

The first respondent alone, while acting as a solicitor at and as manager and owner of the firm, had failed to cooperate with the SRA by failing to provide further information, documentation and explanations requested in (i) a letter from Capsticks Solicitors on behalf of the SRA dated 21 August 2023; and (ii) a notice under section 44B of the Solicitors Act 1974 dated 5 October 2023. She had thereby breached paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs and principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019. 

Between around 29 July 2017 and 30 January 2020, while acting as a solicitor at the firm, the second respondent alone had created an attendance note of a meeting with client A in connection with an Employment Tribunal matter, which was false and misleading in that it suggested that the costs of the tribunal case had been discussed during that meeting. She had thereby breached principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011 and principles 2, 4 and 5 of the 2019 Principles. She had acted dishonestly. 

The first respondent’s culpability was low. There was no evidence of deliberate obstruction, but as a senior solicitor and manager, she had had direct responsibility for ensuring regulatory correspondence was addressed promptly. Her failure to do so had represented a lapse in professional judgement rather than any intentional decision not to cooperate.  

No direct harm had been caused to the SRA’s investigation or to any client, but the conduct had occurred over a significant period and the first respondent should have known the importance of responding promptly to repeated regulatory requests. However, the SDT had accepted that it was an isolated lapse in an otherwise compliant regulatory history. 

A reprimand was the appropriate and proportionate sanction to mark the seriousness of the misconduct and to uphold public confidence in the profession.

The second respondent’s dishonesty had been confined to a single entry within a single attendance note. Although serious, it had not formed part of a wider course of conduct. The motivation was not a calculated attempt to obtain financial benefit but had arisen from the second respondent feeling under pressure to justify substantial costs incurred and attempting to create a retrospective audit trail of a discussion that had not taken place. That, while dishonest, was influenced by inexperience and the unusual contextual pressures of the case.

The SDT had concluded that the case fell within the small residual category in which striking the second respondent off the roll would be disproportionate. The combination of her inexperience at the time; the isolated nature of the dishonesty; the absence of financial motivation; the lack of direct client loss; and her previously unblemished record amounted to exceptional circumstances. The protection of the public and the maintenance of confidence in the profession could be achieved by a substantial period of suspension.

The respondents were each ordered to pay costs of £15,000.

On 22 May 2026, the SRA intervened into the recognised sole practice of John Osman Ward, Osman Ward & Sons. The practice had one office at 37 Church Road, Hove BN3 2BW.

Mr Ward died on 09 April 2026.

The ground for intervention was: it was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients or former clients and any beneficiaries of any trust of which Mr Ward was a trustee – paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 – Part I to the Solicitors Act 1974.

Chris Evans of Lester Aldridge LLP, Russell House, Oxford Road, Bournemouth BH8 8EX (tel: 01202 786341; email: interventions@la-law.com) has been appointed as intervention agent.

On 3 June, the SRA intervened into the remnants of the practice of Sarah Hilton and the remnants of Hilton’s practice at Dallow & Dallow, formerly at 23 Waterloo Road, Wolverhampton WV1 4TJ. 

The ground for intervention was: it was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients or former clients of Hilton (paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended)).

Hilton’s practising certificate has not been suspended by reason of the intervention.

Claire Burrows of Shakespeare Martineau, SHMA SRA Interventions, PO Box 18228, Birmingham B2 2HX (tel: 0300 247 2470; email: dallow-intervention@shma.co.uk) has been appointed as intervention agent.